By on September 25, 2018

Image: GM

Sporting two rows of seating, front-wheel drive as a starting point, and a historical name sure to anger Bowtie brand diehards, the 2019 Chevrolet Blazer revealed itself in June and almost immediately fell from view (and conversation). Compare the nameplate’s return to that of the yet-unseen Ford Bronco, which generated gigatons of buzz in the months and years preceding its upcoming reveal.

The Blazer name’s resurrection, unlike that of the Bronco, wasn’t designed to signal the return of the same vehicle. Chevy had a hole in its utility lineup — created by the newly downsized Equinox and generously sized Traverse — in need of filling. While the sizing seems correct, many took exception to the vehicle being just another a unibody brossover. The appeal of name recognition tipped the decision makers at GM into dusting off a nameplate easily recognized by anyone who lived and breathed in North America during the past 40 years. Purists be damned.

As for pricing, to best battle its midsize(ish) competitors, GM decided on a very predictable base MSRP for its reborn Blazer.

Getting into a base Blazer L will set you back $29,995 after destination. This makes for good advertising copy, as rival Ford’s Edge SE retails for $29,995 before destination, not that many people notice the asterisk. The Edge, of course, offers a turbocharged 2.0-liter making 245 horsepower and 275 lb-ft of torque.

For the starting price, Blazer L buyers stand to gain a pretty FWD crossover powered by a 2.5-liter four-cylinder with stop/start. Power amounts to 193 hp and 188 lb-ft, channelled through a nine-speed automatic to the base model’s 18-inch tires. Depending on personal taste, the Blazer’s looks might set it apart from other small/midsize offerings. Chevy seems to feel there’s a Camaro vibe going on.

Image: GM

The AWD system available on the one-from-base Blazer trim level is not the more sophisticated twin-clutch system found on the midrange RS and uplevel Premier. Those models gain GM’s familiar 3.6-liter V6 (305 hp, 269 lb-ft) as standard kit, though Blazer buyers can also have one if they’d like.

Chevy boasts of the standard features found in the base Blazer — a list that includes keyless entry and start, dual-zone automatic climate control, 8-inch color touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity, 4G LTE with Wi-Fi hotspot, and GM’s Teen Driver feature. Moving up the trim and options ladder brings many more niceties on board, as well as price.

Sadly, GM isn’t saying what it’ll cost to get into anything but the entry-level Blazer. Pricing and further details should roll out in advance of the model’s January 2019 on-sale date.

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

67 Comments on “2019 Chevrolet Blazer Starts at the Most Obvious Price in Its Class...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I’m sure there will be buyers, but none of them will be drivers of the original model Blazer.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    That’s a lot of cabbage for a 4-cylinder FWD wagon. It looks good with red paint. Can the stop/start nonsense be defeated?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      There is no button to turn off GM’s stop/start. The only work-arounds I know of are to put the A/C on full blast or to put the transmission into “manual” mode.

      Personally, I’d just buy from a different brand.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        There are bypass modules now. Do a search. It can be defeated.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “There are bypass modules now.”

          Provided or endorsed by GM?

          Or are you referring to aftermarket wrranty voiding adventures?

          I’ve seen some rumors that a few ’19MY GM vehicles are going to be getting a factory installed “off” button for the system. If true, that would be wonderful.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            The reviews I’m seeing for the new Silverado/Sierra have an “on/off” for the stop start.

            When I put 300 plus miles on my father-in-law’s Terrain I got really good at creeping forward after coming to complete stop at a light. That deactivated the stop start so the engine would be running when I hit the gas.

          • 0 avatar
            Matthew Guy

            Press shots of the Blazer show an on/off button for the start/stop. Unclear as to which engine is under the hood, though.

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Screen-Shot-2018-09-25-at-5.16.11-PM.png

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            That is probably the V6. I doubt Chevy was showing off the L or Blazer trim interiors in the press shots released when the CUV was unveiled.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Rented a Cruze for a bit this summer – the start/stop was abysmal. It’d be an instant “won’t buy” moment for the car.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        On my 2016 Cruze, I was able to defeat the stop/start by taking the A/C out of Eco mode during the summer. In the winter, it activated far less frequently.

        Also, I noticed the programming is different across GM cars. On my 2016 Cruze, it would only ever cut the engine once per stop. So if I
        let my foot off the brake, the engine would start and not stop again until I’d gotten up to speed and stopped again. Whereas on two different 2017 Malibu rentals, the engine would cut multiple times per stop. If I crept forward, it’d start, but then if I didn’t take off within a few seconds, it would stop again.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Blazer? Hardly *sigh*

    Sure hope the Bronco is a better effort

  • avatar
    John R

    Salaryman’s Urus

  • avatar
    Hummer

    This POS makes me embarrassed to drive anything with a bow tie on the grille.I can’t believe GM would hit that far below the belt, this is a new low.
    FCA is building a solid axle Jeep pickup, Ford a BOF Bronco, and GM comes out with a FWD minivan using the Blazer name.

    $30k will just about get you into a base 4Runner, which would be a competitor if GM had made the Blazer a true successor. And that $30k gives you V6, BOF, solid rear axle, standard navigation, full size spare, top tier reliability, and one of the best resale values on the market – resale that this pile will never be able to compete with.

    • 0 avatar
      ByTheLake

      “POS” is probably a bit harsh – it looks like a nice mid-sized crossover, but I do wish GM would create a BoF SUV off the excellent Colorado platform. That would have made an ideal Blazer.

      • 0 avatar
        Lightspeed

        Great idea for using the Colorado frame, and a huge missed opportunity for GM (what else is new?). Despite the price, and despite some arguable shortcomings of BOF and solid axle, the 4Runner remains the resale price king – sometimes people do know what is the good stuff.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Lightspeed: “Despite the price, and despite some arguable shortcomings of BOF and solid axle, the 4Runner remains the resale price king – sometimes people do know what is the good stuff.”

          Strange. I thought the resale price king was the Wrangler. When you can trade one in at 9 years old for a full 50% of its original sales price… the Wrangler is the true BoF king.

      • 0 avatar
        Wunsch

        The BoF SUV on the Colorado platform is called a Trailblazer, not a Blazer. It exists, but it’s not sold here.

        http://www.chevrolet.com.ph/trailblazer

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      “$30k will just about get you into a base 4Runner”

      Not lately it won’t, the base 4Runner stickers 38 now. Getting that down to 35 before taxes would be doing pretty well.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        According to Toyotas website the starting price on a 4Runner is 34,910, which feels like $2k more than I remember when getting into a new 16 a couple years back. I negotiated down to almost 30k flat, but the truck I bought had very few options.

        Lowest prices I’m seeing on cars.com is about 33,5 so it’s definitely seen some price creep.

        Even with that being so your getting a lot more vehicle for your money and personally 3,500 doesn’t make very much difference when you know you’ll keep that in resale value and less repairs over the long run.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Again, the Blazer name isn’t necessarily storied, unlike those of the Bronco or Wrangler/CJ-series. The very first iterations were only lifestyle vehicles because the SUV was so new. After that, it went mainstream, generally doing whatever its competitors were doing. When it was BOF and RWD-based, it’s because almost all of the other SUVs on the market were.

      I don’t see a FWD-based crossover as a betrayal of the name at all. It didn’t stand for much.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Your being a disingenuous, the Blazer had a very large following, unlike Ford that created an all new truck in the beginning, Chevrolet had the Suburban which existed long before the Bronco was ever an idea. Just like IH had the Travelall SUV since 1953 and before that the K/KB wagon series, GM had been building SUVs since the 1930s. The Blazer took the Suburbans formula and made it fun.

        It was BOF and RWD because Americans were not willing to compromise quality for cheap unibody and useless FWD architecture. (Which I might add FWD and unibody were sold as a way to get better fuel economy and a better vehicle, as we see today unibody trucks are synonomys with throw away vehicles) Lifestyle vehicles were a lot different in the 60s – these trucks were expected to be actual trucks, they had to tow, be able to throw dripping wet/dirty gear into, make it through trails or beach sand, and basically be able to turn around and do family duty. It had to be a jack of all trades.

        Sure it didn’t stand for much to you but anyone that lived that era understands what it means. There is no purpose in a FWD crossover as its use is extremely limited, it’s a minivan without all the usable space. Doesn’t matter if it comes from Audi or if it comes from GM crossovers are the ultimate display of automotive ignorance and laziness.
        Which is not at all close to the original Blazer. As an aside if the Blazer name did not have cache then why is GM resurrecting it?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Hummer: I would almost agree with all but your last paragraph; the FWD crossover can be an extremely useful vehicle, even if it isn’t necessarily designed to be the heavy-duty monster that the original Suburban monster was. And remember, the first Bronco/Blazer/CJ/Scout, etc. weren’t really all that heavy-duty themselves; they were purpose built for agility and off-road prowess, NOT to be a working truck like the Suburban. The Suburban was never an SUV and should not be considered one today, even if they have been given that label. The Suburban was a working truck first and a station wagon second. It was a proper compromise between pickup truck and family car, unlike today’s half-ton crew-cab pickups which are more car than truck, despite their appearance.

          To give you an idea, before the crossover craze really hit, I purchased a Saturn Vue, which, as you know, was little more than a jacked-up station wagon on steroids. It was everything a station wagon used to be, short of the clamshell tailgate. You could even fit an 8′ ladder or 2x4s inside with the tailgate closed. Yet it was still a good 5-seater and reasonably comfortable. It was so much wagon that my insurance company classified it as a Sport Utility Wagon. And honestly, that’s what this new Blazer is. It’s not a truck and neither are the vast majority of these CUVs running around the world. And those things that are being called SUVs aren’t necessarily what they should be. There’s no “sport” in something so big that it can’t even turn around on a four-lane highway without backing up!

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Vulpine I think your definition of SUV is off. The whole purpose of an SUV is that it’s a working truck with a covered bed. I don’t think that definition has changed before they were called SUVs and up to now. And I would maintain that the 4Runner and Wrangler fit that definition. The modern (fake) interpretation of SUVs (being CUVs) has really hurt the image of the working family mans truck. If it’s not on a ladder frame it’s not really an SUV. And I disagree on your Sport part of the SUV, offroading and enjoying the a truck with a full length roof is plenty Sport enough. None of the CUVs sold today are going to make it very far off-road (including Range Rovers entire line up and any Jeeps not named Wrangler) they simply don’t have the chops to be the go anywhere do anything vehicles expected of a BOF SUV.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            I have to agree somewhat with Vulpine’s definition of a SUV.

            Historically the Suburban and Travelall were never considered SUVs they were considered by their MFG and marketed as Station Wagons.

            The first use of the term SUV was by Ford with the Bronco. (IH originally marketed the Scout as a, gasp, CAR). However that was a specific model of Bronco. The covered one was sold as, another gasp, a WAGON. The version they marketed as the Sports/Utility was in fact the pickup version of the Bronco.

            However it did quickly come to denote a purpose built off road capable wagon. It was not a vehicle built off or another platform. In other words the original Blazer and second gen Bronco were not SUVs they were just short 2dr wagon versions of a 1/2 ton pickup.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            That’s today’s definition, Hummer. Look again at the original Bronco, CJ and Blazer. Heck, even the Scout was a small rig by comparison, purely for things like game hunting and off-road running. They had no intention of being “working” vehicles; they were meant to be big-boy toys. The old Suburban was never a toy; it was a working vehicle from day one.

            And that’s my point. The definition has changed and not in a good way. Too many vehicles are being called ‘trucks’ just because they, for a while, looked like trucks but were given “space frame” construction. Now they’re being called SUVs because they’re more truck-like in appearance even when they have no truck-like capabilities OR off-road chops worth speaking of!

  • avatar
    theBrandler

    So an overpriced, underpowered wagon replaces a legendary SUV? This from the company that brought us the Corvette ZR1 and the Camaro ZL1!? I think the SUV department needs to be booted and their replacements told to take notes from the sports car team.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    The assault on common sense continues.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      It ain’t the first time. For example, personal luxury coupes made no real sense either (they were all basically gussied-up versions of far cheaper coupes), but they sold the hell out of them.

      I gave up trying to make sense of fashion a long time ago.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    So, Chrevy Brazer from Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors is another cat lady CUV “…powered by a 2.5-liter four-cylinder with stop/start. Power amounts to 193 hp and 188 lb-ft.,” and “it’s based on a unibody platform that’s also used for the GMC Acadia/Equinox.”

    ooooooh, 193 horsepower Equinox; fancy AND rugged.

    AND HECHO EN MEXICO AS ADDED BONUS!

    http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/06/2019-blazer-to-be-built-in-Mexico/

    “General Motors will build the 2019 Blazer in Mexico, the automaker has confirmed.

    Production of the resurrected Chevrolet Blazer will begin later in 2018 at GM Ramos Arizpe plant in the state of Coahuila operated by GM Mexico. The facility currently builds the Chevrolet Cruze, Chevrolet Sonic as well as V6 DOHC and V8 OHV engines.”

    Triple’bonus: I guarantee that the total U.S. parts content will be 50% (or less).

    VIVA LA MEXICO!!!

    VIVA LA CHINA!!!

    VIVA LA GUANGZHOU-GUADALAJARA MOTORS (GGM)!!!

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I’d write about how little sense this thing makes, but what’s the point? CUV madness is upon us.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      It IS madness. Bet you a shiny buffalo nickle that it’s cramped as hell inside with a huge tunnel and claustrophobia inducing back seat…but hey, look at all the cool tech and it just had relations with my PHONE! Yay!

      *Customer then does Kermit arms and runs to the F&I office to sign papers*

  • avatar
    SixspeedSi

    Do we really have to get nostalgic about the Blazer name again with this post? No one cares about how they’re diluting the name with this FWD cuteute. Just like the Garbage 90/00’s Blazer, this will sell and people won’t take issue with the name.

    I’m more offended with the 2.5 base motor. That must suck to drive!

    • 0 avatar
      Grenade

      Most FWD cross overs suck to drive already, so there’s not much love lost with a wheezy 4 banger. At least you can option up to the six. I guess? It’s still a GM crap box at the end of the day.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        The GM 2.5 in CUVs is truly laughable as far as NVH is concerned (my experience was in a rental Acadia SLE). The curious thing is that in the previous body Malibu or current Impala it’s a perfectly normal and inoffensive motor.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          The great irony for someone who owned an 80s GM product is that they would dare to replicate the displacement of the rough lump that was the Iron Duke (2.5 ltrs, 151 cubic inches).

          Build a 2.4 or a 2.6 but retire the 2.5 displacement forever if your name is GM.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Exactly. The Blazer hasn’t been good in 40 years. But if there’s an opportunity for outrage, people will jump on it.

  • avatar
    Grenade

    “Compare the nameplate’s return to that of the yet-unseen Ford Bronco, which generated gigatons of buzz in the months and years preceding its upcoming reveal.”

    I’m sure you’ve not forgotten, but we’ve yet to see the new Bronco. It has a 98% chance of letting everyone down, because of that Bronco6G Forum kick-ass concept photoshop from a few years ago. It went viral and tricked a good percentage of clickbait level car media that’s the real one from Ford. The real one won’t be anywhere near that level of awesomeness.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    We have a rental malibu right now with the 2.5 and undefeatable start/stop. What a depressing engine to have to live with for people who actually spend money on these; I cannot fathom how bad it is lugging around a miDsIZe CroSsOVer and for THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      ^THIS^

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I think your Malibu actually has a 1.5L engine. And yes it’s absolutely horrid to drive, not only did I nearly develop an anuerism from my frustration trying to make that POS get out of its own way but it only returned 22MPG in return. I think GM needs to restart production of the 3.4L 60V6, because they clearly do not know how to make engines less than V8s anymore. And the old 3.4Ls I drove had no trouble getting 28-30 MPG while throwing around everything they went into quite nicely.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Of course the GM Marketing folks are drooling and thinking about how well the Buick and Cadillac versions of this will sell. The buying public will choose Korean or Japanese again.

  • avatar
    jalop1991

    That’s a Blazer? What’s next, Magnum P.I. without a mustache?

    Oh, wait…

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    When are the majority on TTAC going to admit that Ghangzhou-Guadalajara Motors (GM) is THE WORST volume automotive manufacturer in the entire world.

    They have – out of possibly as many as 50 or so vehicles – 3 or 4 decent to good ones.

    At this point, Kia/Hyundai destroy Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors in terms of vehicle engineering, interior materials quality, fit/finish, build quality, reliability/durability, value, overall quality (by wide margin), NVH, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

    GARBAGE MOTORS, MOVE HQ TO SHANGHAI AND BE DONE WITH IT!

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    @DeadWeight: “When are the majority on TTAC going to admit that Ghangzhou-Guadalajara Motors (GM) is THE WORST volume automotive manufacturer in the entire world.”

    — Never. There are too many worse companies out there.

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    Brossover?

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I was hoping “most obvious price” meant $1969, to commemorate the original’s launch year. Oh well.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Hatch struts still work? W T Fudge? My sawed off broomstick handle was always in the back.
  • kosmo: “How’s that Ranger Raptor coming, Ford? Oh, it isn’t? I see. Thanks for the mobility scooter,...
  • dividebytube: When I’m down south I’m taken aback by the number of decent looking old trucks and even G...
  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States